Unter Kontrolle

The FBI agents Elizabeth Anderson (Julia Ormond) and Sam Hallaway (Bill Pullman) come to a police station in the middle of the desert to interview the three survivors of a massacre of a serial-killer that they are hunting. The girl Stephanie (Ryan Simpkins); the junkie Bobbi Prescott (Pell James) and the abusive patrol officer Jack Bennett (Kent Harper) are placed in separate rooms and their hearings are recorded through cameras under the surveillance of Agent Sam. Each one tells part of the gore event; when three bodies are found in a motel, the solution of the case seems to be near to be resolved.

"Surveillance" is a weird thriller that uses the idea of "Rashomon", with three persons telling different views of a tragic event. I personally disclosed the plot point based on the weird behavior of Sam Hallaway, but anyway the surprising twist gives a totally different sequence to the result of the investigation. After the uncomfortable "Boxing Helena", Jennifer Lynch returns with another sick and violent story and bizarre characters. I liked this movie but it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sob Controle" ("Under Control")

As if to demonstrate the old adage that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree," director Jennifer Lynch gave the world in her belated sophomore effort, 2008's "Surveillance," a film just as disturbing as any in her father David's oeuvre. Her follow-up to 1993's "Boxing Helena," the film follows two very atypical FBI agents, portrayed by Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond, who are investigating a string of homicides in the plains of Nowheresville. (The picture was shot in the grasslands outside of Regina, Saskatchewan.) The pair interviews three salient witnesses: a young female coke addict (Pell James, who is excellent here), a local cop and an 8-year-old girl (Lynch elicits a wonderfully mature performance from young Ryan Simpkins). By the film's end, the conflicting accounts yield a somewhat clearer picture, before a twist ending really pulls the rug out from under the viewer. Indeed, this ending--a remarkably downbeat, merciless and outrageous shocker--should stun and flabbergast most of the film's audience. A repeat viewing of "Surveillance" demonstrates how very fairly the writers and Lynch have played their game, and will give an added appreciation for certain actors in the cast. "I promise you, it's not like the other films you'll see," Ms. Lynch tells us in one of the DVD's copious extras, and darn if she isn't right! I cannot offhand think of another picture so deliberately amoral, and so blithely ruthless in the treatment of its entire roster of characters. While some might walk away from "Surveillance" clucking "sick, sick, sick," most, I feel, will applaud its bravura daring, technical brilliance, fine acting and shocking windup. It's certainly not a movie to watch with the kids or with Aunt Petunia, but for those game for something different, it should just prove the ticket....

Jennifer Chambers Lynch, one would assume had been nursing her pride from the dreadful reception of her debut, Boxing Helena. Fifteen years later she releases Surveillance. This one, a murder mystery, is a major improvement but it still has problems. It is a well-crafted seventy minute movie with a remaining twenty minutes of clumsiness, bad writing and a twist which unfortunately is predictable. The movie comes apart when it needs to come together, and the result is medium good, when it could have been very good.

FBI agents Anderson and Halloway for months have been investigating a series of interstate serial killings. The latest chapter in their investigation brings the stories of two odd-ball cops, a dis-communal family on a road trip, and a couple of coke-snorting kids, together in Rashomon fashion.

I like the way Surveillance plays out. Lynch keeps everything slow and mannered, unlike Boxing Helena which is over-blown from the beginning. Lynch is able to keep the film under control, but unfortunately is unable to pull the wool over the viewer's eyes. The answers we are looking for become obvious too quickly, making one question whether her intention was to have the viewer fooled or not. Survaillance is not designed to be conventional thriller. It is too deep and psychological for that, but it sort of ends like one.

If I was gonna label Surveillance in a word, it would be 'bitter'. When it's over, you come to realize that none of the characters (save one or two small roles) are all that respectable. Lynch's screenplay breaks them down into those who mistreat and those who get mistreated, sometimes both. On a positive note it contributes significantly to the drama or tension of the picture. There is a major lack of heart to the film, although at the same time, there is a certain lack of credibility as a side effect. Any attempt to explain may be a spoiler so I wont go that far, but that raises another question...

If I don't intend to spoil it, does that mean I am recommending it? Well, truth be told, I didn't dislike Surveillance. It is eerie and grim, which is certain a plus for a thriller, but the outcome is kind of disappointing. My advice: watch it only if you are curious, but it is not a movie that needs to be seen.

A good thriller is my favorite genre and I was hooked into this film within the first few seconds and stayed involved for the entire ride. It kept me guessing throughout. The contrast between eerie cop shop and stark, beautiful prairies is a stylish treat for the eyes. The performances are believable and compelling. Well cast, without exception. The little girl is surprisingly good. Her even performance made me wonder about what had happened to her and drew me into the story. When she wasn't on screen, I worried about her safety. The ending is a clever, eerie choice. I was taken completely by surprise and I usually predict a telegraphed ending a mile away. In this case, any other choice would be a cop-out (pardon the pun). I was glad that the director resisted the temptation for a blood-fest. It could have gone much further in that vein. Instead the tension relied upon intelligent visual storytelling. Kudos to everyone involved. I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

A pair of serial killers is on the loose, and their latest hotspot is Nebraska. When the FBI investigates, they find that all the witnesses have conflicting stories and are leaving out parts that make them look bad.

Jennifer Lynch is not her father, and it is not fair to her for everyone to compare them. However, for those who are concerned, this is not on the level of David Lynch (but few things are). In its own right, it's a very entertaining and suspenseful film, and it might keep you guessing until the end. For the first half, we are only given a small part of the story, and it works well... I just had to know the rest.

Bill Pullman is fantastic as always (though he's beginning to show his age). I can't see anyone else in the role. Julia Ormond is not familiar to me, but she is also excellent. Cheri Oteri and French Stewart did a great job in serious, and in Stewart's case menacing, roles... a nice adjustment from their past.

I haven't seen anyone compare this film to the crimes of Charles Starkweather (which inspired "Natural Born Killers"), which strikes me as odd. Two killers driving through Nebraska? Seems like a connection... but then, maybe I'm just crazy.

This film is worth seeing and a fine piece of work. It may not be remembered in a few years (it has already begun to fade quickly), but hopefully word of mouth keeps the attention on it for a while.